MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           5 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077528

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | | Director
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | | Analyst

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | | Chairperson
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | | Member
| Mr. John T. Meixell | | Member

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 5 July 1989, he initially entered the Regular Army and he continuously served on active duty for 6 years, 10 months, and 17 days until receiving a GD on 
21 May 1996. 

On 14 March 1996, the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant that he intended to initiate action to separate him from the Army for the commission of  as serious offense.  The specific reasons cited by the unit commander for taking the action were as follows:  violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully possessing a firearm on Fort Bliss, Texas; wrongfully striking a female in the back and choking her; wrongfully pulling the hair and shoving a female; and wrongfully kick a female in the abdominal area.  The unit commander also informed the applicant that he was recommending that he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

On 15 March 1996, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, he completed his election of rights.  He requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board (ASB); personal appearance before an ASB; consulting counsel; and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 2 May 1996, an ASB convened to consider the applicant’s case, with the applicant and his counsel present.  The ASB found that the applicant did commit a serious offense under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200.  In view of its findings, the ASB recommended that the applicant’s  separation should not be suspended, and that the characterization of his separation should be general, under honorable conditions.  

On 10 May 1996, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) reviewed the applicant’s case 
and opined that the proceedings complied with the applicable regulation and that
the findings were supported by the evidence.  As a result, the separation 
authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he receive a GD, 
and on 21 May 1996, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  At the time of 
his discharge, he had competed 6 years, 10 months, and 17 days of active 
military service. 

On 14 August 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after
determining that the characterization and reason for the applicant’s discharge 
were proper and equitable, denied his request that his GD be upgraded to an 
HD. 
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded from a GD to an HD.  However, the evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  

2.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case. 

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__CLA__  ___MHM___  __JTM__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID | AR2002077528
SUFFIX |
RECON |
DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/05
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1996/05/21
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200  C14
DISCHARGE REASON | Commission of a Serious Offense
BOARD DECISION | DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1.  189 | 110.0000
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |